About Robert

Robert is 19 and lives in Glasgow, Scotland.
Currently a Politics and French student at the University of Glasgow, Robert spends a lot of time on political commentary, and reporting and learning about the news.
Robert has provided compelling content for myriad global media outlets for six years.
Robert won the 2014 imPRESS Scottish School Media Awards Outstanding Pupil prize for journalistic successes. Robert has won several awards in the annual Youth Journalism International Excellence in Journalism Contest, too.
Robert is always on the lookout for new opportunities which will allow him to broaden his skills, diversify, and learn more.
Portfolio: robertguthrie.weebly.com
Email: RobertGuthrie@hotmail.co.uk

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Flapping around in the midst of the EU referendum fallout, the Conservative Party is currently enduring what may only be the start of a lengthy spell of political turbulence. Prevailing volatility amongst raging factions of Remainers and Brexiteers has shown that the UK’s recent vote has failed to eradicate the tense mood which currently shrouds the Tory party. Stranded at the epicentre of the Brexit wreckage, the Tories have been left broken and despairing. June’s ballot has certainly not put an end to the Conservatives party’s epidemic of quarrelling, and future success for the party looks to be considerably far out of reach.

The European Union isn’t the only source of the UK government’s quandaries, though. In a vetting process originally set to take at least ten weeks, David Cameron’s successor has been rapidly selected in just three. Upon the surprising victory for Vote Leave, it were former Mayor of London Boris Johnson who was originally tipped to succeed the now disposed of Cameron.

After a rather uncharacteristically serious stint as co-frontman for the Vote Leave campaign alongside Michael Gove, a large proportion of the Tory party believed that it were Boris who had proven himself worthy of leadership. But Gove’s crafty moves to undermine Johnson in the party leadership contest were relatively successful. His cunning decision to run against Johnson – an act described by many as treachery – has certainly prevented Boris from mapping the Conservatives’ direction in the short term.

Last week, most thought that Boris Johnson was finished, and that he may never hold any more influential party position than that of a constituency MP. But the prominent blondie may well come back to widen the Tory party’s divide in months and years to come – especially during or following the incumbency of newly-appointed Theresa May.

Yesterday, it were instead she, the former Home Secretary, who triumphantly stood in front of Number 10, ready to colonise Westminster with her distinctly formidable demeanour and uncompromising approach to decision-making. Today, May pressed on with the hand-picking of her new political arsenal. Mrs May’s cabinet has seen many a surprising appointment, however, including – rather controversially – that of the Boris Johnson who is now Britain’s foreign secretary.

One of the politicians deemed most responsible for the great rift which has sprung up in the middle of the Tory party now sits in one of the most important positions in politics. But seated underneath the watch of Theresa May means that Johnson will be, to an extent, constrained. Everyone knows that Boris is a careerist and has dreams of the Tory party leadership. Theresa May’s tactics remain to be seen, but, needless to say, Mrs May will be keen to dissociate herself from Johnson’s politics which could subvert her much-needed authority.

But it is Mrs May who has the upper hand now. It is she who has the power to decide the fate of Boris Johnson. Will he be a successful foreign secretary, bolster his standing within the party, continuing to stoke the still red hot coals of the Eurosceptics’ campfire? Or will the new Prime Minister user her iron fist to manoeuvre Johnson off her path, clamping down on his sizeable realm of support?

By promoting Boris Johnson, who will surely be one of her government’s most prolific ministers, Theresa May could possibly have made a fatal error. Despite only a marginal win for Vote Leave, Brexit generated not only wide support for cutting ties with the European Union, but also for Boris Johnson himself. Today’s cabinet announcements include six Brexiteers – six individuals who still advocate for the views of the Tories’ large Eurosceptic, more libertarian base.

Herein lies the problem. In the event that the popularity of Mrs May begins to wane, the grounds for Boris Johnson to become the backseat driver of this government could look strong. Providing Boris Johnson with such stature could come back to kick Mrs May, and could be detrimental to the stability of her brand new premiership.

On the other hand, allowing Boris Johnson to have a degree of political ammunition is a somewhat clever move. Undoubtedly, Boris’ careerism and ambition to work his way into the top seats of government still exists. Keeping the man who has the power to be most divisive in the cabinet forces a great deal of responsibility upon him.

His ability to largely manage the UK’s global affairs, and, needless to say, implement the Brexit for which he so desperately advocated, shows that sympathy is not one of Theresa May’s defining characteristics as a politician. If the operation of leaving the European Union backfires, it will not be Mrs May who takes the blame. And, of course, an ability to broker deals and negotiate with international neighbours is essential for truly great politicians.

Should Boris Johnson fail to become a hit with the rest of the world’s biggest economies, the future premiership hopeful’s reputation will be destroyed. Currently, his global record isn’t wholly clean, having made several offensive remarks in relation to other cultures, prompting worldwide hostility. Johnson was booed at a French press conference today, is reportedly hated in Brussels, and many Germans cannot believe Boris’ new status. Judging by Theresa May’s ‘take no prisoners’ attitude to government, Boris Johnson and his future chances will be eaten alive by his fellow party members should he make detrimental diplomatic blunders.

Albeit considerably better organised, the Tory party is still precariously balanced upon the controversy of issues relating to the European Union, immigration, and the only very recently more earnest Boris Johnson. Prime Minister Theresa May has made the decision to feed Mr Johnson the power for which he eternally begs, but keeping Boris at bay is vital to the stability of her leadership. Gaffes, policy rejection, and rebellion could result in a challenge to her leadership just as messy as that carried out by Gove towards Johnson.

Theresa May has shown in the past that she is a formidable leader. She is one of few Home Secretaries to emerge from the position with their reputation unscathed enough to battle on in the cabinet. With the right foresight and meticulousness, Mrs May could indeed revive the Tory party to its former robustness. As the internal lining of the Conservative party fabric is now close to tearing, it is vital that stitches it back together, with Theresa May pushing her cabinet ministers and backbenchers into line with her tough approach – especially Boris Johnson.

UK politics has never before been so Machiavellian, based on opportunism, and required such precise tactics. If the nation’s new Prime Minister shows any signs of flinching, those on the other side of the Tory party will surely squirm their way out of their muzzles immediately, Boris Johnson clenching the reins. Theresa May had better have had her game plan drawn up weeks ago. The careerism and ambition of Boris Johnson has certainly not been halted, but the Prime Minister must fast minimise it. Clever manipulation by Mrs May of her internal opponents is what will veer them away from her new political stomping ground. Johnson is the Prime Minister’s biggest threat, but whether or not he will be a success or a failure is her call.

When Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation on Friday morning and a vote to leave the European Union started to take its toll, many would have thought that only the Conservative party would be the losers. The staunch divide created by tension between the politics of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, and the likes of Cameron and Theresa May has doubtless been accentuated thanks to last week’s vote.

But the Conservative Party’s destructive toil isn’t unique to them. Over several months, the Labour party has split into a collection of raging factions, fighting a bitter war against each other. After a catacylsmic defeat for Labour last May, the more radical Jeremy Corbyn was elected as party leader with a resounding victory. Corbyn has been successful in speaking for a massive body of Labour members who yearn for a different party. However, he has hammered in the wedge that divides the opponents to and supporters of his leadership far deeper.

The chaos caused by the EU referendum’s surprise result is testing UK party politics to lengths never seen before. With the heightened possibility of a general election very soon, both Westminster parties are desperate to iron out their problematic ideological creases. For quite some time, Labour’s benches have been an arena for fierce competition between advocates of more Blairite politics and traditionally-principled Corbynista radicals.

The atmosphere on opposition benches has only recently grown more intense, though. Labour’s movements of late have shown that the party seriously lacks unity and direction. Failure to eradicate such turmoil could mean that the party provides next to no function, unable to adequately hold the Conservatives to account. With exits quite different from last week’s, but of a level of seriousness that is just as worrying, Corbyn’s shadow cabinet has been ripped to shreds.

It were the grassroots members of the Labour party who elected Corbyn and his revolutionary politics last year. But it now seems that a lurch back towards the right may underpin the future of the party. The amnesty which Hilary Benn spearheaded early on Sunday morning has seen 47 MPs who were previously on Corbyn’s side abandoning their positions as department ministers and under-secretaries, profoundly questioning Labour’s status and its abilities. 150 Labour MPs are expected to support a motion of no confidence against the embroiled Labour leader this afternoon.

In the midst of the ongoing mass exodus, Corbyn’s position as Leader of the Opposition has never been so hotly contested by many politicians and commentators. But the grounds for the stubborn leader’s removal appear weak. Over two thirds of the party’s supporters voted to remain in the European Union. A degree of opposition is natural and a left-wing Brexit was, for a large number, a sure anti-establishment vote. If a majority had voted against remaining in the EU, Corbyn’s leadership would certainly be more justifiably fragile.

The stark divide which has manifested itself across the Parliamentary Labour Party is now more than just an inconvenience. And it is all the more frustrating given that support for Jeremy Corbyn amongst party members and recent Labour voters remains robust. A survey carried out in recent days by pollsters BMG showed that 85 percent of those who voted for Labour in 2015 would vote again for the party if Corbyn was leader in a possible snap general election. Three quarters of those who declared themselves as considerably left-wing would support a party led by Corbyn. The party has even seen an increase in membership over recent days, many voters desperate to secure Corbyn’s leadership in a likely internal vote. Corbyn’s impressive mandate still exists, but has been defaced with the EU referendum scapegoat with which his former allies have fatally sided. Several weeks ago, Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than David Cameron, a position which his own party has shamefully removed.

Evidently, the present Labour leader still commands a great deal of support amongst current party members. In the same way that taking Scotland out of the European Union would be unfair, so would the removal of Corbyn against the will of a majority of Labour’s support base. Corbyn’s victory last year was a major breakthrough, creating the potential for a revitalised Labour, galvanising progressive political forces.

Vote Leave’s win is unfairly being used to oust Corbyn. He is the man whom many MPs deem to be the antithesis of General Election-winning material. Coinciding with similar internal strife within the Tory party, Labour could have appeared as the united force ready to push for a progressive Brexit. Those who have abandoned Jeremy Corbyn and his progressive platoon show little faith in the causes that they previously pledged to defend. The break up of the shadow cabinet has wrecked prospects of election-winning unity any time soon.The party should be embarrassed, and it is somewhat disheartening to see that MPs are oblivious to the amount of self-harm that the removal of Jeremy Corbyn during such party system paralysis would create.

The well fuelled campaign for an end to Corbyn’s leadership shows that many of the party’s MPs are attached to the old, Blairite days of Labour. So few seem to believe in the socially democratic cause now. With a media which seems largely against Corbyn, looking instead to the forward-thinking aspirations of many party members could successfully prove the strength of our democracy, and the strength of the Labour party. This is a missed and now savaged opportunity. Labour now runs the risk of alienating its core supporters. Ignoring the wealth of voters and party members who still vehemently support Corbyn is mindless and undemocratic.

Should this weekend’s events spark an inevitable Labour leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn still has the ability to be successful. The incumbent chief still has the potential tto gain significant support and prove his opponents wrong. He may even hold on to his position as the face of the Labour party. If he is to emerge unscathed, it will expose a damaging truth – that Labour MPs are out of touch with its members.

The Labour MPs who have walked out this week have done their party no favours whatsoever. What it has shown is that much of the Labour frontbench will do anything for votes, succombing to the right and carelessly tossing away their truly socially democratic values. Jeremy Corbyn’s politics has refreshed the Labour party, and MPs should abandon him at their peril. Corbyn is the only chance the Labour party has of reflecting the views of ordinary people, and of achieving decisive and principled direction. A challenge to Corbyn’s membership is not in the interests of MPs or, most importantly, of Labour’s core voters. Many members of the shadow cabinet have this weekend only emphasised the rift in the Labour party more, and made progressive politics harder to achieve.

When the major blow of Yes Scotland’s defeat set in during the aftermath of 2014’s Scottish independence referendum, many believed that the SNP would become a paralysed, lost cause from then on. Few would have thought that, under the sturdy leadership of the formidable Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party would regain its position in dominating Scottish decision-making. However, Britain’s surprising verdict on EU membership has proven that Sturgeon’s contingent isn’t just controlling Scottish politics.

Rated by Forbes magazine as the most powerful woman in Britain after Queen Elizabeth II, not to mention the 50th most influential in the entire world, Brexit is changing Nicola Sturgeon and her party’s fortune. Perhaps next year’s rankings will have Sturgeon placed higher. I certainly wouldn’t argue with it. But whilst Brexit is stripping the good fortune of many British politicians, such as that of the precariously placed Jeremy Corbyn, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her party has only gained a position of greater power.

Given that victory for the Leave campaign in last week’s EU referendum was largely down to English votes, protest by many passionate internationalists and keen Scottish nationalists has dominated headlines. Scotland’s intentions evidenced by last week’s vote – of more than 70% support for Remain in many areas north of the border – has clearly shown that policy should take a different direction here.

After arguing consistently that a Brexit is not in the interests of the people of Scotland, the Scottish First Minister’s gargantuan new task is to rescue Scotland from the effects of Vote Leave. But the flipside is that this gives the SNP an exceptional political advantage. Nicola Sturgeon is in total control of Scotland’s future within the EU, and that influence does not span across issues with regard only to Scotland. In the likely event that the SNP leader is unable to forge a deal granting European Union membership to Scottish citizens alone, it will be Nicola Sturgeon who is in charge of deciding whether or not the United Kingdom really is united, refuelling her independence crusade.

The volume of influence that the Scottish First Minister now brandishes places Scotland in a very strong position at the fiery EU negotiating table. The events of this week have shown that the First Minister will remain silent at her peril. The Brexit result which hoped to bring increased sovereignty for the entirety of the UK has in turn weakened ties between Westminster and its sibling Scottish parliament at Holyrood.

Since 2007, the SNP has been the major force in Scottish politics, standing as the party of traditional social democracy, and, of course, independence. However, Sturgeon’s position as a key player in international affairs has become stronger thanks to a victory for Vote Leave. The triumphs of Johnson, Gove and Farage in terms of the European Union have not translated into triumphs for the UK’s union. For a Brexit has all the more accentuated the deep political crevasses which set apart the different components of the UK.

It seems that David Cameron has made a fatal error by underestimating the challenges of keeping Britain in the European Union, not to mention the challenges of keeping Britain on side with his party’s government. A harsh split, further nursed by the Prime Minister’s Friday morning resignation, threatens the future of Conservative party politics. The Labour party is no safe haven either. Ravaged by a leader deemed unable to take it to its peak in a possibly imminent General Election, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership looks tenuous.

Nicola Sturgeon is no fool. Her party has seen numerous victories of late, and her ability as a skillful tactician is more obvious than ever before. The aforementioned failings highlighted by the shock of Brexit have only widened Sturgeon’s stage as an influential policymaker. In recent days, SNP support has surged, an effect similar to that achieved by the Party during the aftermath of the 2014 referendum. Inner party turmoil certainly doesn’t riddle the SNP. Sturgeon’s socially democratic force is one of the only ones avoiding a rift with its clear-cut policy, and this is one of its grandest assets.

The SNP is a decisive and strategic band, a tidal wave which now seems to dwarf the fragmented Labour and Conservative parties at Westminster. Sturgeon isn’t right-wing populism, Sturgeon isn’t scaremongering, and Sturgeon isn’t austerity. Faisal Islam of ITV remarked this morning that it is Nicola Sturgeon who has “the most thought out plan” for Brexit. In a likely snap general election, the First Minister is sure to pick up some of the votes of those who have become dismayed by the Tories’ and Labour’s endless internal strife. Her shrewdness and sharp-witted nature are her doubtless fortes which have been brought to light all thanks to Brexit. As long this adeptness does not fail, the SNP will call the shots in Scottish politics, and indeed in European relations, for many months and years to come.

With the failings of the UK Parliament parties in producing constructive political change, as well as a vote for Brexit which ignores Scottish votes, Sturgeon’s movement for independence may, too, build in strength and support. A reassessment of relations between the UK and EU has brought the question of national sovereignty back into the political arena. Aims of the Smith Commission evidently haven’t gone far enough, and in ways akin to the post-Brexit case, Scotland’s opinions are becoming drowned out. The contrast in opinions over the EU between England and Scotland serves to demonstrate exactly why Scotland is growing tired of the talking shop that is Westminster. Sturgeon has the ultimate upper hand over the future of the United Kingdom, and Sturgeon’s movements may well provoke a breakup.

More interestingly, the future of Scottish Labour looks grim. The European Union question may well change opinions of the Holyrood party whose support has plummeted over recent years. Yesterday it was widely reported that the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, will consider support for independence. But this is surely a political death of Sturgeon’s arguably inadvertent making. Dugdale’s extreme desperation for votes in tandem with growing support for the nationalist cause could mean that even the skeleton of Labour’s Scottish branch is no longer safe from a painful fracture. If her strategy is to support independence, Dugdale risks splitting her party between nationalists and unionists, only playing into Sturgeon’s hands.

The European Union debate has questioned not only UK sovereignty, but also the sovereignty of the separate nation states which make up the UK. Recent events have shown clearly that the politics of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are vastly different.

With Sturgeon ceasing the opportunity for using this as a vehicle for constitutional change within Scotland, it is easy to see that the Scottish First Minister’s actions over coming months will largely determine also the United Kingdom’s fate. Along with the most prominent of British and EU officials, it is the Nicola Sturgeon who will have one of the most influential seats at the Brexit negotiation table. Whilst both major political parties within Westminster are fast collapsing, diseased by pathogens of indecisiveness and disarray, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s party which remains dead set on its policy. The First Minister of Scotland only has Westminster to thank for her unprecedented leverage. After the breakthrough of devolution in 1999, along with an intense referendum discussion two years ago, few could have foreseen Scotland continuing to pose such a huge threat to the longevity of the UK.

The pollsters had, for several days, proclaimed an easy win for Remain, and even UKIP’s Nigel Farage, known for his strong-willed politics, suspended his Brexit celebrations yesterday at 10pm. As much of the UK population downed tools last night, Prime Minister David Cameron and his team believed that a victory for the Remain camp was in the bag, and that their futures were secure.

But after a passionate yet emotive speech from David Cameron this morning, it is clear that a defeat for the Europhiles was in fact the reality, and that it would cause an almighty stir. Conceding Remain’s defeat after a tumultuous EU referendum campaign, it was his nemesis Boris Johnson’s turn to breathe the sigh of relief. Hailing a win for his Vote Leave campaign wasn’t the only feature of his unusually civilised speech, however.

Shortly after Cameron’s unexpected news, Johnson paid tribute to “one of the most extraordinary politicians of our age”, Cameron soon to set out on a departure of his own. After watching our politicians spearhead a somewhat childish referendum campaign, featuring many old playground tactics, we must question the credibility of our leaders and their Establishment.

Today’s marginally winning, but evidently considerable, support for an end to the UK’s relationship with the European Union tells us many things. Leaving the EU will have a monumental impact on our nation’s operation, and may well tear the threads which tie the United Kingdom together – now with all the more fragility – apart.

Whilst the wealth of support for the campaign to leave the EU has shown that the continental community is problematic, it also provides us with alarming truths of our own society. The European Establishment is obviously at fault, but in the same way, that of the United Kingdom is, too. Citizens throughout England, Wales, and parts of Northern Ireland, primarily, are evidently finding the current political regime tiresome.

It is nothing short of devastating that so many have been compelled to reject a co-operative European administration which keeps its member states in line, and that a huge proportion of our nation’s trade and investment opportunities have become suddenly fractured. In addition, the air of common culture that only the European Union was able to promote and diversify has become smoggy. Our borders will soon be barred, and our ability to co-operate easily on the largest of international issues has been shattered.

The overwhelming gains made by Johnson, Gove and Farage have shown that the entire political Establishment has failed many a British citizen, and that the status quo is not working. Such numerous working class Leave votes throughout the Midlands, the North of England and Wales were surely fuelled by the failings of past years’ budgets to revolutionise living and working standards for the most deprived. As London and Scotland voted overwhelmingly for a seat at the European table, it is clear to see the divide between these culturally diverse epicentres and communities which feel hard done by with current government.

With blatant lies and scaremongering, the campaign agenda of Vote Leave in many cases revolved around playing to the fears of the electorate. A debate which featured not a conversation on the nature of free movement, but instead xenophobia, failed to focus on the positives of a vote to leave the European Union. A campaign which has revolved around the demonisation of minorities, and the confusion of many voters who have become caught up in a bog of sly statistics has generated fear and instability throughout endless scores of communities.

Doesn’t this form of campaign strategy in itself paint a vivid picture of our decaying Establishment? Our nation’s political integrity has hit a very low point. Whilst the EU referendum has now been won, no one can dismiss the tricky tactics deployed by those advocating for a vote to leave Europe. The degrading tone of many of our politicians over the past ten weeks has shown that the UK must fast restore its social respect. For the obsession with blame and fear that has dominated the EU debate has only boosted the tense culture which flows throughout many British communities.

Let us not forget one of the most important aspects of this year’s referendum. Hasty to combat the imminent threat that UKIP posed to British politics, and keen to restore Tory party unity, it was Prime Minister David Cameron who dug his own grave by risking the referendum.

Cameron is responsible for a campaign of scaremongering himself, but his intent on using a matter of great public interest in order to heal the Tory party has come back to kick him. Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the Establishment this time was its focus on careerism, and its desperation for political advantage, adamant that the discussion would effortlessly stamp out UKIP. Many would argue that Boris Johnson secretly hoped that a win for Vote Leave would help to cement his future as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Instead, the Tory party has cost itself valuable allies and its credibility. The Prime Minister’s running away from Downing Street today speaks loud enough volumes. His ‘master plan’ to redeem the Conservative party of populist threat has markedly backfired.

Scotland’s mammoth 62-38 vote in favour of staying within the European Union has shown the intense social divide between our two nations all the more. The UK Establishment has been unable to smoothen out the arduous terrain of the new political landscape, already reshaped by pro-Scottish independence sentiment. Of course, the Scottish remain vote was nothing at all of a protest, unlike the possible intentions of those across England and Wales. But the robust links of Scotland with the EU have shown Scotland’s distinct mindset, and has only made Westminster’s relationship with Holyrood more prickly.

Surely after such a game-changing campaign and result, the Establishment will not be able to rest comfortably for many nights to come. Today’s vote result was undoubtedly a loud SOS from many who feel largely discontented with the European Union’s present operation. But the surprise victory of Vote Leave has served to pose new challenges for the British Establishment. Its fear-centric campaign has shown that the UK must find a new source of political integrity, and today’s unforeseen victory has highlighted that many feel failed by politics within the EU, and the UK.

The Establishment in itself has wrecked Britain, and has killed its own chances of success. But it didn’t have to be this way. Populism is the fault of governments around the world. Euroscepticism and right-wing populism has the failings of our global Establishments right at the heart of its rapid spread.

It is now only the Establishment which must restore public confidence and diminish its own detriment. It is only the Establishment which can start to once again champion the hardworking people of British society, and support the deprived. And it is only the Establishment which can pop the dreams of future right-wing populists such as Donald Trump by treading the moral high ground.

If the EU referendum has proven anything, it has proven that our leaders have made a great mistake in trying to combine political advantage with serious questions of the position of Britain in the world. The British Establishment’s fearful campaign tactics have displayed the lack of political dignity that surrounds our nation’s decision-making process. Surely our leaders wish to avoid further calamity. But to do so, they must first restore themselves and their own structures.

It has been a long time since I have heard predominantly good things being spoken of a politician, the current political landscape, or their policies. Perhaps some of the moments which last sparked jubilation in the political sphere were when Barack Obama was elected as the first black US President, when Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was last seen conversing naturally with a group of – actually interested – schoolchildren, or when German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood in front of Syrian refugees with open arms.

But it seems that right now, political contentment is at a low. The tone of debate around the world has degraded in recent months, and many of our politicians and their policies seem to revolve around counteracting some form of societal evil. Every day we are instructed that immigrants, nuclear power stations, or even Donald Trump will be the reason for the world’s end. Energised by multiple failings from both above and below, a wide range of voters, activists, and ordinaries have come to believe that politics is not working, a pessimistic and tiresome mindset which is fuelling politics of bitterness.

This advent has helped to kick-start fiery anti-establishment groups, seeing a rise in politics which focuses on resenting specific parts of society, creating a dangerous political culture. This engagement with ‘blame; policy is rapidly increasing, and is having a somewhat devastating side-effect. Whilst many citizens are, of course, uniting in opposition against what they deem to be most threatening to themselves and society, many are detrimentally turning hurtfully against certain social groups, in some cases minimising minorities and bolstering fear.

A handful of recent events serve to prove this. Only last week, the shooting of British MP Jo Cox showed that a sad minority believes in an act as shameful as killing an elected official. In recent days, Italy’s main anti-establishment party has made huge gains, Italy not the only country to see such a rise. Worldwide, the refugee crisis – the biggest movement of people since The Second World War – has provoked mixed sentiment, including a large pool of anti-immigrant protesters, and in many areas, even xenophobic and racist feelings. And a couple of months ago, the Panama Papers revelations exposed large-scale wrongdoing across global governments, fuelling anti-establishment feeling all the more.

It is no wonder that citizens across the world are bored with such endless, fruitless rhetoric. Fear and hatred are fast coming to define politics as citizens see no other remedy to their ailing governments and communities. Wrongdoing within government, a selfish hostility to an influx of immigrants, and resentment towards our MPs are each playing a part in tearing up society. Politics now revolves around marginalisation – not celebration of the good qualities which enhance our nation.

So, who is at fault for the culture of torment and blame which is reconstructing our political culture? Many would argue that society itself is causing the problem. The rise in barbaric terrorist acts shows that much of the gusto for wreaking havoc comes from the people. But it does indeed look like the Establishment has a monumental part to play. In many cases, electorates around the world have turned dead set on voting for manifestos which show pent up discontent with their current rulers. Recent corruption in relation to financial wrongdoing and offshore accounts, the polarisation of our political parties – fostering such intense left and right wings – and the rise of such casually outspoken leaders such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage are each contributing to a new politics stubbornness. In the same way as many of our politicians, scores of voters now flippantly find anyone to blame for the worst of societal calamities. The success of anti-immigration ideals and anti-establishment policy emphasises that such an ethos is becoming increasingly – and somewhat worryingly – commonplace.

Hatred and blame are becoming international epidemics, diseasing our politics. On the social media stage, and even on our streets, jibes aimed at specific minorities are growing worryingly normal. The demonisation of a select few is creating an all too casual class of resentment amongst both voters and our leaders – incumbent and prospective. When, indeed, will an air of acceptance, teamwork and common good return to the fore of society’s mind? Without definite steps towards a strong emphasis on co-operation and interdependence, Britain will grow alien to the world in the same way that many deem outsiders as alien to Britain.

If anything, at least our democracy is functioning properly. A healthy democracy must have channels for opposition, but the scale of dissent is becoming too huge. As governments struggle to deal with new political, social and economic challenges, a blaring national forum is playing out. Our principles of free speech and the ability to challenge are evidently strongly in place. But out nation’s obsession with opposition, and the willingness of albeit very few to marginalise set individuals may soon have the adverse effect. The sudden influx of political discontent and the deeply rooted challenges that many pose to the status quo could see the destruction of our democracy.

Perhaps I am, in some ways, no better than the few who continue to rage, exaggerating the pessimism which seems to surround Britain’s politics. Whilst opposition is a fundamentally good thing for politics, the movements in which a select few citizens are involved are turning the act of standing up to certain policies into a license for hatred and resentment. If our politicians and citizens are adamant to blame an failing establishment and lax leaders, perhaps it is indeed our representatives who are wrong, and it is those who continue to fuel such a dirty discussion. Maybe when Britain starts to re-energise its public services, a blame on migrants will diminish, and our discussion will become cleaner. Maybe when our government proves to be truly in touch and right on the level of the people, anti-establishment and its needless addiction to blame will fade away. And maybe when leaders who believe in the acceptance of racial slurs and scaremongering step down from the podium, society will start to rebuild its bridges.

It doesn’t take the most keen of political junkies to tell that British party politics is reaching a frustrating stalemate. The Labour party, since the growth in support for – and election of – Jeremy Corbyn, has become the arena bearing witness to fierce internal strife over its position on many issues. But the current debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union has smashed the complacency of many Conservatives who believed they were safe from the epidemic of divide. A huge rift has developed between staunch supporters of David Cameron and other hard-line Eurosceptics. If anything, this is a stark message alluding to the evidently out-of-date Westminster Establishment.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party last year marked a significant turning point in Labour policy. Torn between the Blairite ‘third way’ and Corbyn’s by-the-book socialism, vast numbers of MPs are struggling to find much common ground. The Tories have proven to struggle with similar issues of their own, with a camp strongly in favour of ideas from further right, and war over the quandaries in relation to immigration and EU status.

This is worrying for a democracy like Great Britain. If parties fail to wholeheartedly unite and allow such instability to thrive, the future of British government looks bleak. The current Westminster structure is outdated and old-fashioned, unable to adapt to the specificities of modern day voting behaviour. There is simply no way that Britain can be forced to mould itself into such an uncomfortable structure which takes only a few indecisive policy options into account. Without change, governments will become ineffective, oppositions feeble, and the electorate switched off.

This issues lie with the Establishment and its pace alongside a fast-changing society. Our main political parties of Labour and the Conservatives were once formed with the target of aggregating their respective working and middle class citizens. But nowadays, our political society cannot operate in this way. Social class is now far less important for voters than it was during the war-time and post-war periods.

Thus, the factors of gender, political personality, age, location, and simply the precise issues themselves have gained in astounding importance over the past decade. The attempts of many ‘catch-all’ parties in Britain, and further around the world, to gain the support of the average voter may be somewhat genius abroad, but is seemingly not practical in the UK. The diversity of our nation’s society today means that each person is looking for something different from politicians, and our leaders are failing to inspire each and every one of them. The Westminster parties in Britain are struggling to adapt to the new challenges of the 21st century, and aren’t succeeding in raking in the trust of all sorts. The British political system is stuck in the past in its old social class boundaries, and needs new rules.

So how can Westminster become the dynamic environment for engaging political debate that it once was? The people and the society are in place, but the institutions aren’t keeping up with the electorate’s transformation. The fact that both of the largest parties must deal with somewhat eternal internal splits, and juggle two very different pools of policy, must hint that the political framework of the UK needs to be taken a part and put back together again.

PR is the answer. Many reports have shown that if proportional representation had been used in recent elections, the share of seats in parliament would be markedly different. In 2015, the SNP in Scotland would have seen substantially less seats, UKIP would have achieved a whopping increase, and the Liberal Democrats would gain a position as fourth party in parliament with a 7% share. The key advantage with PR, is that it is a modern system designed for a modern society, which takes the growth in issue voting into account. The most important thing is, however, that PR would nurture Conservative and Labour party splits which are much needed for any form of progress. PR would not mean instant death to one of the parties’ internal camps, but would build a separate party stage allowing them to truly proclaim their message, instead of begrudgingly succumbing to their inner opposition.

Perhaps the Tories and Labour would be reluctant to split currently, eager to cling onto their inevitably greater share of power through the First Past the Post system. But in the next ten years, unless both sides unite, the crevasse will grow deeper and a parting looks inevitable. Separate parties with pacts on their similarities, giving a degree of leeway for their differences would revolutionise the Westminster system and make the party system considerably more workable.

We need a change. Through a complete overhaul of the Westminster institution via voting system, politics would become fairer and more true. Certainly, large sections of Britain would become more politically engaged, waving goodbye to the blockaded politics we have witnessed for too many months. Many societies worldwide have made the change, including Germany, New Zealand, and, of course, Scotland. It is time for Westminster to follow suit. If the London Establishment continues to trudge on in Westminster – the abyss of torment and interparty battles – Britain’s democracy will become decayed and society will grow bored of the nation’s dysfunctional decision-making.

As the judgment day that is June 23rd fast approaches, the nature of Britain’s foreign policy and its international relations have never before been placed under greater scrutiny. The European Union referendum has meant intense discussion of UK parliamentary sovereignty, global spending, and the nation’s relationships with neighbouring states. But our nation’s ties with states located in Europe aren’t the only ones coming into question.

Past weeks have given ear to the dissonance regarding international affairs across the whole world – most specifically, in the USA. More often known as TTIP, the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between America and the EU is set to boost the global economy, but at a considerable price. Myriad MPs and activists have voiced concern in recent weeks, claiming that the new Atlantic agreement would put public service operations at risk of privatisation, reduce the UK’s financial regulatory powers, and that a robust, European, ethical framework would begin to break down.

What is driving the steady support for the introduction of TTIP is what has always driven the capitalist West – money. It is easy to see that TTIP is attractive from the outset, providing grand chances for the further stimulation of the US and EU economies. Experts have estimated that the agreement would mean a global financial boost of around $100m. The prospects of a stronger world economy are plausible, but cannot come at the expense of a great loss in parliamentary sovereignty to multinationals, and a loss of focus upon the global common good that the EU at least tries to instill. Numerous EU directives would become quickly overridden, and big businesses are sure to have a draconian power influence not only over parliament, but across all of society.

The truth is unravelling all too quickly. The rise in Euroscepticism, meaning an obvious rethink of Britain’s relationships with its neighbours, is showing that our global affairs are not based on camaraderie at all. Many of us do not identify as Europeans, and do not share the sense of community that helps to construct many states in the Eurozone. Innumerable pieces of legislation are born in and baptised by the EU, and it is clear that, for some, its collective direction has shaped our nation’s decision-making process a little too much. Political advantage and dialogue is not what Britain’s politicians seek from the likes of Merkel and Juncker anymore.

During the campaign leading up to 1973 – when Britain gained EU membership – one of the biggest cases in favour of the transition was the almost instantaneous economic advantage. Still, the economy lies at the heart of Britain’s colony in Europe. Neither peace nor teamwork are foremost here. Britain can’t have joined in order to work for the common good like many of those who signed up to the post-war European Community. The stubbornness of the British government over recent months, and from a large proportion of the British people, has made this blatantly obvious. Britain has gained all it wants to from the EU. Trading relationships for several decades have moved the nation back into the spotlight, and the nation’s politicians have maintained and increased the nature’s stature.

Perhaps the European Union has now politically exhausted the United Kingdom. Whilst it would secure increased sovereignty, if the UK votes to leave in just over three weeks’ time, it needs to ensure a back-up plan for its economy. Capitalist America is prime stomping ground, of course. Right-wingers are tired of the EU’s legislative infringement, a burden to a nation that seems to look primarily at its economic standpoint instead.

If Britain chooses to stay, a world of benefits is still available from all directions. But the tasks of interstate teamwork and the concessions that it commands are proving to be too much for vast numbers of national Eurosceptics. Britain and many of its people are willing to forego ethical standards set by the EU, and risk the security of vital public services – anything to ensure that the nation’s economic ballast does not take a hit.

The UK has always been a wily character when it comes to global affairs. Its position in the European Union was, from the start, one that was painstakingly scrutinised and adapted. Looking at the nation’s relationships abroad with a predominantly narrow, economic focus can explain not only the EU and TTIP quandaries, but also the controversial UK-led Saudi arms trade, and Britain’s closed door approach to the refugee crisis.

A devastating side effect of this highly capitalist, 100% economy focus is that any form of moral high ground is likely to disappear from Britain’s view of the political landscape. Neighbouring states and global organisations continue to allow Britain to meticulously negotiate its way into economic partnerships of all kind. In turn, buying into more agreements like TTIP and the EU, seeking only economic benefit, will only degrade the UK’s moral high ground when working on international matters.

Those who favour a Brexit on June 23rd choose to advocate for an odd but somewhat entertaining juxtaposition. The EU is said to be the world’s freest global marketplace. But whilst claiming that the economic case is the most important thing at stake during the EU debate, those backing Vote Leave are essentially supporting a major economic climb-down for the UK. TTIP may stimulate the economy to an extent, but it will take time to build up the success that the UK has had with Europe. Why leave what has been one of the UK’s most sturdy support bases for many decades? For sure, a Brexit would mean returning to many controversial operations, create social, political and economic animosity all over the European continent, and significantly reduce Britain’s moral standards in both trade and manufacture.

In the quiescent aftermath of the Scottish independence referendum two years ago, one major criticism was made. It does, however, seem forgotten today. Both David Cameron and Alex Salmond continually slammed each other for campaigns of scaremongering in the months leading up to the 2014 vote. Press outlets unleashed damning reports of both the Yes and No sides’ tactics, and many voters argued for a more fact-based approach in future. Surely this year’s EU referendum debate would be something more civilised.

Frustratingly enough, the past few weeks of dialogue between the remain and leave camps have failed to foster the clear and precise discussion for which the electorate increasingly yearns. Weeks of needless racial slurs from Vote Leave, deliberately provocative press spin, and crafty controversy from Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, as well as other prominent Eurosceptics have destroyed what might have been a sophisticated debate. As personality and press coverage become more important in the voting process, the electorate will vividly remember the pathetic playground tactics that have come from some of the most prominent MPs. The fact that our politicians have failed to present stimulating facts and figures in a straight-forward manner shows that the tenor of the UK’s political dialogue is set lower than ever.

The tone of the EU conversation is gravely worrying for the future of the UK’s political society. The ersatz debate has switched off vast numbers of voters, and has turned politics into a violent shoot-out with politicians hotly trading insults. Blatant scaremongering and carelessness has left a large proportion of the electorate uneducated and unable to make an informed vote. Last week, the head of the UK Statistics Authority rendered just one of the figures used by Vote Leave in relation to EU spending as inaccurate. One MPs’ report made similar conclusions, and today the campaign has backed down on claims in relation to EU energy spending. How can we trust such deceptive campaign tactics? For these reasons, it is devastating that several thousands of voters will inevitably give up this time, and fail to turn out on 23 June. Politicians are falling short of inspiring British citizens to take part politically, especially in such a crucial vote. Our political decision-makers will only be held less accountable unless debate becomes refined, a prospect which could seemingly thin our democracy.

The EU referendum campaign has been further plagued by tedious racial slurs – even from activists whom are becoming inspired by the controversial standpoint of Vote Leave. The activities of a handful of their supporters were condemned on social media yesterday after a questionable roadside billboard playing on an offensive German stereotype. Today, a campaign poster for Operation Black Vote was widely deemed racist. The plan to leave Europe was once a key to more political freedom and heightened national control. It seems, however, that the campaign for a vote to leave Europe is now based on other issues.

The recent weeks’ wagging of fingers and prodding of each other with insults like misbehaving schoolchildren may not only sacrifice a defeat against those campaigning for a Brexit, however. This approach of many is destroying the foundations of a quality political culture. The ten-week campaign is starkly showing that the biggest issue lies within the problematic and muddled UK Establishment. The fact that a notable rise in Euroscepticism in an array of political parties has recently materialised – namely Ukip and the Tories – and that many proponents of the leave campaign have advocated for the aforementioned controversial campaign tactics is something of concern. The disorderly and shameful methods used by both campaigns in the run-up to the June vote is highlighting why populism is becoming so successful, but is also seeing the politics of evil flourish. It is clear that this is what is leading to a decay in the quality of the UK’s political conversation.

Many of our elected representatives have seemingly failed the electorate, taking more time over the petty dirty work of politics instead of presenting straight-forward facts to the people. The EU campaign was the opportunity for more civilised and sophisticated politics, and an opportunity to build on the considerable rough-and-tumble of the Scottish referendum a couple of years ago.

But still our political culture is markedly degrading, proven by the quality of discussion over recent weeks. The most disheartening aspect is that the power to rejuvenate political debates lay in the hands of our politicians, and it is something they are choosing to ignore. Such a factually weak campaign with smear tactics at the core is degrading our democracy. With skewed statistics, deflection from the real issues, and childish taunting, in no way can many of the campaigning politicians claim to have run a constructive, informative campaign. Instead, our politicians have resorted to tiresome disputes with one another, chucking in many a hurtful jibe. Both the remain and leave campaigns have shown that they are unable to sustain a compelling atmosphere in relation to the 23 June referendum.

Such melodrama has only fuelled the chaos which currently riddles the UK’s political theatre, and has damaged the nation’s quality of politics in a plethora of ways. Next month’s referendum provided the perfect opportunity for a triumph over the politics of fear, and a growing, highly prejudiced sector of the hard right. Maybe this has proven that divisive, hurtful and more devious politics will become the norm. The juvenile dialogue of the European referendum campaign has becoming something of a spectator sport, rather than one in which all British citizens can fairly participate. Once again, our leaders’ poor performances have only halted chances of swift progression towards a brand new, better society – in this case, a reformed Europe that works for all.

Violent protests are choking up streets, almost a quarter of the nation is unemployed, and taxes are at unprecedentedly high rates. A country which has faced economic despair for over eight years, Greece is still in need of a realistic, long-term, and sustainable plan in order to rejuvenate its ailing economy. It is time that the European Union accepted that it should not bring Greece to adhere to unrealistic conditions. Instead, it is in the Union’s interests to – albeit begrudgingly – hand the Greek people the support they need.

Greece’s economy has barely improved even with international ‘aid.’ There must be something going wrong with the present strategy. Greece’s level of debt is eating away at the livelihoods of ordinary people, sitting at around 180% of output. It is estimated that as much as 75% citizens’ earnings is being taken in tax revenues, alongside other harsh, EU-imposed austerity measures. Greece’s unemployment is now more than double that of the EU average. Austerity is not working, and the lives of citizens are not improving. It may, in the long-run, make a stronger economy, looking at only the macroeconomic situation. But for the average Greek, their personal income and quality of life will not markedly improve. Surely this should be the primary goal of the EU.

The national economy can only recover through investment and employment, in the same way that many of the world’s greatest economies started. The Greek parliament last week was backed into approving €5.4bn of controversial budget cuts. For a nation that voted “oxi” – or “no” – to extensive budget rescaling last year, this is surprising. But is it that surprising, really? The international press and our leaders will keep telling us that Greece has no other option. But really, this is just highlighting the crippling monopoly of the European Union.

The time for a review of the supposed Greek recovery has come, but quarrels between the European Central Bank, Eurozone, and International Monetary Fund are continuing to stall any workable progress. The EU has the chance to serve one of it’s most important functions – to uphold its true values of solidarity, and support its member states in calamities. With particular reluctance on the part of the German government, it seems that Greece and its people will not come back to life unless a form of compromise is made. A harsh economic dictatorship, being orchestrated by Merkel, is neither an intelligent nor viable strategy for a Greek recovery. Amidst worrying social unrest, the Greek government simply has no choice but to succumb to the rigid conditions of troika.

This week, Christine Lagarde of the IMF has reported a significant contraction in the Greek economy, and that the aspirations of the EU for Greece are largely unrealistic. In order to progress to the next stage of bailout, the Greek government must repay €3.5bn by July. But achieving any form of budget surplus means harsh austerity measures, passed as parliament grit their teeth. The only option which could lead to true stability and progress is if member states contribute to a stronger Greek economy, by aiding with debt relief, and if the EU’s expectations are reduced.

Selfishness from the European Union will only lead to increased calamity, and not only financially. Supporting Greece is in member states’ interests. Economic solidarity is necessary in multiple respects, and is what the European Union ought to stand for. Without true moderation and aid, Greece will decline in many ways. Less investment and support will mean more unrest. Greece’s streets have already become increasingly violent, and there is no sign of the chorus of opposition waning. Does Merkel really want to lug around a socially unstable state? Furthermore, chances of tyranny and political instability would only grow.

Unless the EU comes truly to the rescue, the current left-wing government will grow more unpopular, and the anti-establishment, austerity-defending hard right will succeed. Without a good cash flow from Brussels, economic growth will never be high again for at least the next decade. The lives of Greek citizens will become arduous and their prospects weak. There is no denying that it will be a long, hard slog. Choosing to ignore Greece to the furthest extent possible is not a realistic or pragmatic option. Money must be used as an incentive for growth and rejuvenation, not just something to tick a box. The focus must turn to getting people back into work, and reducing austerity to a more acceptable level. Only with a long-term plan which combines components of balance and sustainability will Greece be able to emerge re-energised.

No decision will be favourable, and no form of austerity desirable. But at the moment, the EU is in its own bubble. Christine Lagarde and the IMF have the power to pop it. The creation of a realistic plan should be fast sought. There is no quick fix, but if the government can present a collective strategy with visible, incremental improvements, Greece will be slowly reincarnated. The European Union needs a reality check. It is undermining its own principles of solidarity, support and prosperity. When realistic and pragmatic strategy emerges, with a plan spanning the next decade, the Greek people may finally be a little more content. By ignoring the seriousness of the Greek crisis, the EU is only creating more problems for itself. Unrest will plague communities, government popularity will further decline, the hard-right may well conquer another European region, and individuals will become tired. Surely the nurturing of economic demise is not something the EU wants to credit itself with.

With a regular dosage of stories on the destructive consequences of Western interventions in the Middle East recently, it seems that civilian deaths have become something normal. A plethora of extremist groups has taken global governments of late by storm, provoking drastic defence measures involving all the superpowers. Dangerously dispersed power amongst tyrannical factions like Islamic State and al-Qaeda has emphasised the strong need for protecting the global community. But the airstrikes and artillery supported and, in some cases, provided by states like the United Kingdom, is having a detrimental effect on innocent civilians.

Since Saudi Arabia’s recent intervention in the tempestuous Yemeni civil war between rebel and president forces, the United Kingdom has rabidly supported its destructive defence policy. David Cameron’s conservative-led government has been pivotal in building Saudi military strength, rather controversially. Whilst the marginalising and weakening of barbaric terrorists is essential, coining the UK’s operations wholly as ‘efforts’ would be a huge overstatement.

Whilst the Saudi defence tactics supported by the UK have had successes, their impact has fostered desolation, death and detriment on a vast scale. Our terrorist methodology is becoming similar to that of medieval times. It was reported in April that a cumulative $6bn has been spent on UK arms production for Saudi Arabian use since the Saudis’ entry into the conflict. David Cameron has scandalously authorised the provision of astronomical quantities of weaponry produced by UK companies for Saudi Arabian use. It is our government which is in control of the Yemeni people’s fate, and it is our leaders who are choosing not to provide constructive humanitarian aid.

Until very recently, the damaging civilian impact of Britain’s violent strategy has been less reported. Whilst combatting extremism to an extent, civilisations are becoming obliterated, children have been displaced, and essential services have ceased to function. Easy come, easy go. Towns and villages are coming to a standstill, and vital support organisations’ hospitals are failing to cope. David Cameron, alongside an army of MPs, is the pioneer of a crusade massacring millions at the expense of erasing only a handful of brutes. It was estimated a few months ago by the World Health Organisation that around 6,400 civilians with no militant motivation have been killed by western weaponry. Further to this, around 2.5m people have had their livelihoods stripped of them, bearing no possessions nor a roof over their head. Médecins Sans Frontières have had countless facilities reduced to rubble. Instead of bringing political stability, the Tory administration are nurturing a mammoth humanitarian crisis across Yemen. How can our leaders stand by such brutality, which is damaging communities?

Akin to the actions of Tony Blair in regard to the pain of the Iraqi conflict, Cameron is in danger of committing atrocious war crimes. Many Westminster MPs have already condemned the government-supported attacks. This comes alongside criticism from organisations like the United Nations and pressure groups Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Our nation is defying vital human rights convention. Many innocents are having their livelihoods instantaneously stolen from them. Such criticism should be setting the alarm bells ringing. If Russia were collaborating with Saudi Arabia, orchestrating attacks such as those that the UK support, there would be international outcry. The Tories’ reprehensible hand in the arms trade is thus the source of great hypocrisy and deceit.

Once again, the moral case has been outdone by the political and economic cases. The prospect of large sums of money from the Saudis is the true power supply of such careless warfare, as one British government inquiry termed it. Our government has proven that it is morally and politically weak. With growing pressure from US Secretary of State John Kerry, David Cameron and his Atlantic allies have chosen to play into the hands of just a few businesses rather than tread the moral high ground of stamping out such demoralising attacks. Large profits have triumphed over more attentive soft power, destroying the chances for dialogue and collective humanitarian action.

Perhaps in a couple of years, when the flame of the harmful Yemeni conflict dies, will a viable solution to the civil war be found. Hunger, poverty and ill health are continuing to prevail throughout the nation, thanks to British bombs. The United Nations is only 40% towards sourcing the $703m needed for reconstructing the Syrian nation, and it looks like the West would be reluctant to help after recent events.

We have to be hard on extremism, but it is clear that the United Kingdom’s interventions are just too much. The civilian loss is huge. Communities will never be the same. Detriment of this type has been felt before in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, alongside a great deal of other regions. Where will be next? If our answer to extremism is blood and bombs, the world will fail to increase in political sustainability? Through the United Kingdom’s current methods for defeating such tyranny, terrorism will grow more commonplace, and our international relations will become more brittle. The Yemeni people need humanitarian support, and it is time that our approach focused on teamwork, peace, and sustainability.